- 5 -
Petitioner agrees that he has the burden of proving his
entitlement to an abatement of interest. See Rule 142; Woodral
v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
As applicable to the years before us in this case, abatement
of interest may be available under section 6404(e)(1) with
respect to the portion of interest on tax deficiencies
attributable in whole or in part to errors or delays committed by
respondent in the performance of ministerial acts that occurred
after taxpayers were contacted in writing with respect to such
deficiencies.3 Ministerial acts are described as procedural or
mechanical acts that do not involve the exercise of judgment or
discretion by respondent. See, e.g., Crawford v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2002-10 (citing sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary
Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987)4).
The denial by respondent of the requested transfer of
petitioner’s appeal from respondent’s San Francisco Appeals
Office to either the Fresno or Brooklyn Appeals Office involved
3 The 1996 amendments to sec. 6404(e)(1) limited respondent’s
authority to abate interest on tax deficiencies to situations
where the interest was attributable to “unreasonable” errors or
delays committed by respondent and expanded the situations in
which abatement of interest might be available to include
“managerial” acts (effective for taxable years beginning after
July 30, 1996). Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168, sec.
301(a), (c), 110 Stat. 1457 (1996). This amendment is
inapplicable to the instant case.
4 In 1998, sec. 301.6404-2T, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
63 Fed. Reg. 70012 (Dec. 18, 1998), was finalized, effective for
tax years beginning after July 30, 1996.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011